Let's get this straight.

Yes we do.

 

Not to president and vice president, for which they appeared in the first draft but were specifically removed in the second while listing every thing else.

 

Public opinion on 1-6 is fairly evenly divided whether it was an insurrection or a plain old riot. My question is, has or was 1-6 officially declared an insurrection by whoever has that authority or power? Congress hasn’t, the government, say the DOJ, Homeland security, FBI, etc. hasn’t declared or said anything. The Colorado supreme court has ruled Trump’s removal from their state republican primary ballot per section 3 of the 14th. Implying Trump was an insurrectionist and 1-6 was an insurrection. Although the Colorado supreme court didn’t come right out and state that. I would assume in their mind, in the minds of 4 of the 7 judges, 1-6 was an insurrection and hence, the application of section 3 needed to be applied.


I think what we need is to get a definite answer whether 1-6 was an insurrection or not by the government. I think everything else revolves around this one question. Public opinion be danged. I would say Colorado made the first step in this although they didn’t specify or rule directly whether or not 1-6 was an insurrection or a riot. That was left to be implied by their ruling on removing Trump. Perhaps the SCOTUS will decide this.


Which may leave open since no government authority as mentioned above has declared 1-6 an insurrection, maybe the SCOTUS could throw out Colorado’s supreme court decision out based on the lack of 1-6 being officially, legally, by our government declared as being an insurrection. Now who actually has the power, authority to say whether 1-6 was an insurrection or not, the 14th is moot on this. Although section 5 does give congress that power via appropriate legislation. Like declaring war.


All I know is that this will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

 

If what you wrote were not nonsense, they'd have charged him, arrested him and tried him. They didn't because what you write is nonsense.
Trump said go peacefully protest the apparent stolen election. That in the US is what we call, "speech" and it is protected. Saying, "go kill Pence" is not. It's a law violating directive. But Trump said nothing of the kind.
Do you really want to live in a nation were powerful deep state elites simply declare people guilty of crimes?
I don't. Such thinking leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields. I personally hope to stay off the cattle cars and keep from being shoved in an oven.

 

.........irrelevant.

 

And I am correct.

 

Projection duly noted.

What you believe fits that description WAY BETTER than anything I write.

Ever heard the term "dog whistles"?

Your Traitor-in-Crap uses them ALL the time to SIGNAL to his MAGA supporters the CRIMES he wants them to commit. EVIDENCE for that can be found in his verbal ATTACKS on poll workers, judges, law clerks, etc, etc. Shortly thereafter the DEATH THREATS arrive.

Your Traitor-in-Crap INCITED his MAGA supporters with WAY WORSE than that pablum piece you quoted that he used to DISGUISE his dog whistles.

The CO Supreme Court issued a ruling that INCLUDED a pertinent REMINDER on the LIMITATIONS of Free Speech.

INCITING others to commit a CRIME is NOT protected under the 1st amendment.

IRONICALLY your invocation of the Nazi atrocities is something your Traitor-in-Crap PROMISED will happen if YOU return him to power.

Did you NOT hear him say those EVIL things? Did you NOT make the connection if you are aware of what he said? Would YOU support him doing those evil things that he has PROMISED his MAGA supporters that he WILL do if elected in 2024?

 

That's the due process to send him to jail, not render him ineligible.

 

Nope. You get a speeding ticket , if you just pay the ticket that's due process.

 

Yes just like citizens in the states that have banned Trump used this right. There is far more evidence of the Biden family engaging in bribery and selling influence than Trump was involved in an insurrection but it is entirely up to the opinion of the Secretary of State remember? There was no trial in Maine the SecState is not even a lawyer she said she watched YouTube videos and read news reports. THAT's all it takes in YOUR banana republic.

 

Nope it is a confession and says as much on the ticket. And that is a misdemeanor affecting no other rights.

 

In my words, not in your words, for all intents and purpose, regarding the matter of qualifying, we think of 'ballot' what, like some 99.99999% of the time?

Technically, one does not have to on the ballot if one is qualified, but how often is that?

In my 72 years I can't remember any time when that was the case, so quit nitpicking to backpedal out of a lost argument.

Besides, if you are disqualified, you cannot promote a 'write in' campaign, that would be violating a number of laws.

 

Exactly what I said about public opinion. I agree, public opinion is irrelevant as to whether 1-6 was an insurrection or not. What is needed is for someone with the authority or power to declare 1-6 an insurrection. One of the arguments before the SCOTUS could be since no one with the legal authority has, Trump can’t be an insurrectionist if 1-6 wasn’t an insurrection.

 

Let me state it simply from the start.

The Constitution allows anyone to run for president if they meet the three primary qualifications.

The 14th Amendment was written to prevent citizens who supported the confederacy from holding office. The democrats are applying that amendment by saying it applies to anyone guilty of insurrection. However, in Trump's case, they are applying it to someone who has not been convicted of insurrection.

 

it is not an assumption. it is a presumption, given the weight of evidence.

A number of persons have been charged with seditious conspiracy.

THe reason Trump hasn't been charged could very will be due to time constraints given the upcoming election, where Smith decided to go after lower hanging fruit in order to secure a conviction, where he would come back later and indict the unindicted co-conspirators, including Trump, on more serious crimes, crimes, such as seditious conspiracy (which is contributing to insurrection) down the road.

Moreover, section 3 does not require a conviction. We've been over this many times.

 

A difference without a distinction and complete bunkum into the bargain

 

While it's true that the confederacy was what prompted the 14th amendment, Section three was broadened to include potential acts of insurrection committed in the future.

If that weren't true, they would have narrowed the language to refer only to the Confederacy.

We know this because of the colloquy of the Senate debates conducted on the floor of the Senate recorded in the congressional record on the matter of the 14th amendment regarding section three.

Proof available on request.

 

Your comment does not negate mine.

 

And its still due process.

 

An opinion based on the 5 days of evidence and expert testimony presented by both sides.

 

Even one of the witnesses called in Trump's defense had written...........

Murray pointed to a commentary written by Delahunty for The Federalist, a conservative website, in August. In that article, Delahunty wrote of Section 3: “Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to ‘officer(s)’ supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.”
https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/11/03/testimony-14th-amendment-colorado-trump-trial/

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

 

There was no trial and conviction in CO and NO COURT was involved at all in Maine it was a unilateral decision by the SecState who is not even a lawyer herself, she stated she came to her conclusion by watching YouTubes and news reports probably referring to Rachel Maddow.

 

But you don't have to agree to it and can if you wish insist on a trial.

 

Colloquys are not laws.

 

And?